But you'd probably still look.
If there were only one image to sum up Dolt 45 and his prisoner's relationship:
Oh, and I learned last that my bartender prefers men who are too old for her by that rule.
For some reason, this made me picture the Trumps as if they were on Modern Family, with Barron as Al Bundy's new son.
I'm pretty sure my wife would be nudging me saying "Isn't she cute?"
As fun as it has been talking about the fluffy stuff;
Flynn and Mueller agreed to delay sentencing today. This is a sign oF continued cooperation.
Also if you frowned during the State of the Union you are a treasonous traitor now.
Nunes over the weekend admitted that he had not in fact read the FISA warrants that were the basis of his memo.
Nunes also claimed that trump and Papadopolous had never even met each other.
FBI emails now reveal that all reasons given for the dismissal of Comey by Trump are false.
And to iterate trump has repealed the clean water act. So fuck you Flynn Michigan.
Flynn and Mueller agreed to delay sentencing today. This is a sign oF continued cooperation.
Also if you frowned during the State of the Union you are a treasonous traitor now.
Nunes over the weekend admitted that he had not in fact read the FISA warrants that were the basis of his memo.
Nunes also claimed that trump and Papadopolous had never even met each other.
FBI emails now reveal that all reasons given for the dismissal of Comey by Trump are false.
And to iterate trump has repealed the clean water act. So fuck you Flynn Michigan.
All of the news sources I can find keep telling me that Trump repealed the 2015 expansion to the Clean Water Act, which hadn't actually been enacted yet, due to legal challenges from 30 US states and numerous companies. So, yes it's terrible, but no, they didn't repeal the Clean Water Act. But yes,
Edit: For clarity.
Last edited:
You've got idiots in 49 other states going, "why should *I* have to pay for that shit?", and a right wing noise machine more than willing to signal boost that for ratings and dollars.
This is me.
This is also me.
This is, yet again, me as well, though if I agree with her that a cheerleader is cute I usually try to append it with "But not as cute as you, honey wifey!"
Or, he's trying to dilute the meaning of the word, for his own PR benefit in the future.
"It's the same as when Dems didn't cheer for me you guyz... totally the same. Cheers, Russia, same thing!".
Well, they did warn him his actions might cause economic issues, and saying they'll drop is the same as causing it....
I am just done. I plan to vote in the next midterms and that's about it. I am too worn out otherwise.
The 2015 expansion to the clean water act has absolutely NOTHING to do with Flint, so stop it with the false emotional appeal already.
The 2015 expansion of the clean water act doesn't change the rules, just the jurisdiction. It moves a lot of control the states had over their own waterways into federal management.
There's a lot of good reason - on both sides - for their respective positions, but this isn't a simple matter and painting it as an absolute right vs wrong or good vs evil only serves to cloud the issue further.
Ceding control to the federal government isn't always the right answer, nor is giving total control to the states. But the federal government only grows, it never retreats. Even "temporary" legislation outlives those who created it.
So these issues should be hammered out over time, and we shouldn't necessarily agree to the federal government's decision simply because they are the federal government, and even when a congress passes a law and there are objections we should treat those objections with due diligence, just like we should for laws you don't happen to agree with.
And to be clear, the 2015 clean water act expansion covers bodies of water, not drinking water systems or quality. Lakes, rivers, etc that do fall under federal management are unchanged. Some bodies of water that were treated on a case by case basis (ie, the government had to go to court and get a ruling to determine who had authority) are now de-facto under federal management, and now some bodies of water that are completely within state boundaries and would never have been under federal management have shifted to a court decision if the federal government can prove hydrologically they are connected.
Again, this doesn't affect drinking water except for the fact that our drinking water comes from these sources. Which may seem like a pretty big deal, but as we've seen in Flint the water source was never the issue, it was bad management during a water source switchover, and the clean water act expansion, had it been enacted years before the flint crisis, would simply have made absolutely 0 difference in that situation.
Again, this doesn't affect drinking water except for the fact that our drinking water comes from these sources. Which may seem like a pretty big deal, but as we've seen in Flint the water source was never the issue, it was bad management during a water source switchover, and the clean water act expansion, had it been enacted years before the flint crisis, would simply have made absolutely 0 difference in that situation.
Hey now, I didn't say anything about this legislation (or its cancellation/revocation/what-have-you) being the reason that Flint was going to keep getting screwed over. All I did was point out that The Clean Water Act hasn't been repealed.
You said:
So yes, technically you didn't exactly say, "Flint will continue to suffer because Trump repealed the expansion." You just implied it by making it the concluding statement of a paragraph about the expansion repeal.
I apologize then, that wasn't my intention.You said:
So yes, technically you didn't exactly say, "Flint will continue to suffer because Trump repealed the expansion." You just implied it by making it the concluding statement of a paragraph about the expansion repeal.
Sorry for jumping down your throat about it, then. I've seen too many people use and abuse the Flint crisis towards their own ends so I overreacted.
Only if I decided not to vote. At this point I am 100% voting Democrat in both midterms and the 2020 election, which will be a first for me, so there is no point fretting over it right now when there is nothing I can do to change the shitty situation we are in right now. I have to hope people in power just keep it as contained as possible till we can roll him out of the office. I think that is the opposite of what they wanted.
Dave
Staff member
This comes from the Daily Kos so take it with a grain of salt (they are VERY partisan the other way):
This story, in which the Trump-appointed administrator of a federal agency apparently summarily banned an American journalist from participating in news conferences after the reporter refused to remove sentences in one of his stories that the administrator wanted removed, is striking, and not just because it represents a direct Trump administration attempt to censor what is reported in the press.
The short version is that Modern Healthcare reporter Virgil Dickson was removed from an agency telephone-held press conference and told he was not allowed to participate after someone within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, now headed by Seema Verma, a Pence-tied conservative whose healthcare vision primarily consists of Americans getting less of it, took issue with his reporting on the "abrupt" resignation of a top Medicaid official.
So we have a federal agency curtailing press access to reporters whose stories contain unpleasantries, which is off the bat not what we are supposed to be doing. But that’s only half of it.
The person to call Dickson to make this demand is a curious character:
And what idiot hired a man fresh off a guilty plea for lying to investigators? Oh. Right. These clowns. And these clowns have apparently enlisted a consultant fresh off a guilty plea for lying to government investigators to help administrator Seema Verma purge the nation's papers of … reporting she doesn't like?
This story, in which the Trump-appointed administrator of a federal agency apparently summarily banned an American journalist from participating in news conferences after the reporter refused to remove sentences in one of his stories that the administrator wanted removed, is striking, and not just because it represents a direct Trump administration attempt to censor what is reported in the press.
The short version is that Modern Healthcare reporter Virgil Dickson was removed from an agency telephone-held press conference and told he was not allowed to participate after someone within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, now headed by Seema Verma, a Pence-tied conservative whose healthcare vision primarily consists of Americans getting less of it, took issue with his reporting on the "abrupt" resignation of a top Medicaid official.
After the article appeared, Dickson received an email from Brett O’Donnell, a communications contractor working for CMS. O’Donnell called reports of a disagreement or workload problems “false speculation” and said it was “irresponsible” to mention them without more details. [...]
The next day, O’Donnell wrote to Dickson’s editor, Matthew Weinstock, asserting that the article was inaccurate and demanding that the references to workload and the disagreement be excised. O’Donnell’s email also stated: “Short of fully correcting the piece we will not be able to include your outlet in further press calls with CMS.”
Dickson and his editor stood their ground—and at the next press call with CMS, Dickson was indeed removed from the call.The next day, O’Donnell wrote to Dickson’s editor, Matthew Weinstock, asserting that the article was inaccurate and demanding that the references to workload and the disagreement be excised. O’Donnell’s email also stated: “Short of fully correcting the piece we will not be able to include your outlet in further press calls with CMS.”
So we have a federal agency curtailing press access to reporters whose stories contain unpleasantries, which is off the bat not what we are supposed to be doing. But that’s only half of it.
The person to call Dickson to make this demand is a curious character:
O’Donnell, the consultant who threatened to blackball Modern Healthcare, is not a member of the media affairs offices for CMS or for HHS.
He is a Republican strategist who has helped GOP candidates in their political campaigns. In 2015, O’Donnell pleaded guilty to lying to U.S. House ethics investigators about how much campaign work he did with money that came from office accounts rather campaign accounts.
O’Donnell, reached by email, declined to answer questions from AHCJ.
So he is apparently a consultant for the agency rather than an employee because he was too crooked for the post? Or does the Republican "strategist" find it more strategic to be off-payroll?He is a Republican strategist who has helped GOP candidates in their political campaigns. In 2015, O’Donnell pleaded guilty to lying to U.S. House ethics investigators about how much campaign work he did with money that came from office accounts rather campaign accounts.
O’Donnell, reached by email, declined to answer questions from AHCJ.
And what idiot hired a man fresh off a guilty plea for lying to investigators? Oh. Right. These clowns. And these clowns have apparently enlisted a consultant fresh off a guilty plea for lying to government investigators to help administrator Seema Verma purge the nation's papers of … reporting she doesn't like?
Thank you. You do have a point, though. It has been used and abused and revized to a fare-thee-well, so I edited my comment to make it more inclusive (or at least, that was my intent)
.
Last edited:
If your choice is Kang or Kodos, it's not all that helpful.